Originally posted by @thinkofone Weren't you on the other side of this in writing?:
"Terribly misguided understandings of passages contained in manuscripts submitted for publication should lead to correction by the author prior to publication or in subsequent editions. Don’t you think?
i see no conflict. The correction of texts that are terribly misunderstood by readers should be done. Where we see examples of terrible misunderstandings not being corrected, we can seek to make them known.
Originally posted by @js357 i see no conflict. The correction of texts that are terribly misunderstood by readers should be done. Where we see examples of terrible misunderstandings not being corrected, we can seek to make them known.
C'mon. You also wrote this:
"Misunderstanding is always on the part of the reader. "
Originally posted by @thinkofone People's understanding of expiation for sins as documented in the OT:
Whether or not it was only through the shedding of blood.
Whether or not Leviticus 17:11 is saying that it is only through the shedding of blood.
Whether or not Hebrews 9:22 is saying that it is only through the shedding of blood.
Whether or not the shedding of blood is a tacit s ...[text shortened]... lse understanding of this topic because they've been misled in an effort to "sell" Christianity.
Originally posted by @thinkofone It means to me what Google brings up if you search for its definition:
"1.used to ascribe responsibility for something to someone."
What's it mean to you?
"Misunderstanding is always on the part of the reader.”
"Misunderstanding is always done by the reader, not by the author.”
These mean the same to me.
We needn’t get into a discussion of whether the author of Leviticus is responsible for my relative’s understanding of it. The process by which it was written, who wrote it, whether it was divinely inspired, what my relative”s preacher taught, how she interpreted it, etc. is all too much for me. These disagreements usually go nowhere. It was a terrible reading of the verse, in its effect.
Originally posted by @js357 "Misunderstanding is always on the part of the reader.”
"Misunderstanding is always done by the reader, not by the author.”
These mean the same to me.
We needn’t get into a discussion of whether the author of Leviticus is responsible for my relative’s understanding of it. The process by which it was written, who wrote it, whether it was divinely insp ...[text shortened]... . These disagreements usually go nowhere. It was a terrible reading of the verse, in its effect.
So, ""Misunderstanding is always done by the reader, not by the author.”
Yet the onus is on the author to correct it.
Okey. Dokey.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
06 Feb '18 08:453 edits
The New Testament says that Christ is the Christians' Passover.
" ... for our Passover Christ, also has been sacrificed for us." (1 Cor. 5:7)
We must recall the history of the Passover in Exodus. The blood was to be placed on the lintel of the house. And the judging angel went through the land to kill the firstborn. God said that when He saw the blood He would PASS OVER that house.
" For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast ... (v.12a)
And the blood shall be a sign for you upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there will be no plague upon you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt." (Exodus 12:12,13)
In terms of eternal judgment then, when God sees that we are under the blood of Christ, the believers' PASSOVER, eternal punishment will not come upon us.
" ... for our Passover, Christ, also has been sacrificed for us." (1 Cor. 5:7)
Originally posted by @thinkofone So, ""Misunderstanding is always done by the reader, not by the author.”
Yet the onus is on the author to correct it.
Okey. Dokey.
If the misunderstanding is widespread and dangerous, and the author is aware beforehand of the vulnerability of readers to the mistake, then yeah, I'd support legislation to warn authors that they may be held accountable for creating a danger to the public.
What's bothering you about this? We are held accountable for creating dangers to the public, like the guy that refuses to fence his swimming pool.
What's your understanding? Was that the only way for the "debt to be paid"? Is that what Leviticus 17:11 is saying? Is that what is being said in Hebrews 9:22? Is that a tacit stipulation for Jeremiah 31:34?
Whether you agree or not, it appears to be how the writer of Hebrews 9:22 is using the matter of the blood of redemption of Lev. 17:11.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
07 Feb '18 16:47
We have to include -AMONG OTHER THINGS - that the writer of Hebrews was relating to Christ's offering of Himself with the promise of a new covenant in the book of Jeremiah.
Hebrews does not teach that Jeremiah's prophecy is ONLY about the shedding of Christ's blood for forgiveness. But it is impossible IMO to say Hebrews excludes the redeeming blood of Christ as a part of the new covenant.
He certainly does not make Jeremiah's prophecy argue against the redeeming blood of Jesus.
I think I can prove both points above.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
07 Feb '18 17:111 edit
What's your understanding? Was that the only way for the "debt to be paid"? Is that what Leviticus 17:11 is saying? Is that what is being said in Hebrews 9:22? Is that a tacit stipulation for Jeremiah 31:34?
The writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah's prophecy in two places.
Hebrews 8:8-12 (in full) and Hebrews 10:16,17 (in a more abbreviated way).
In the first quotation he writes:
"For I will be propitious to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins I shall by no means remember anymore."
The question of importance, I think, is - Does the writer of Hebrews relate this forgiveness with Christ dying and shedding His blood?
The matter of Christ offering Himself HAS to be related to His dying on His cross.
For starters in 9:7:
" ... only the high priest enters, once a year and not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people."
The allegory is made to refer to Jesus Christ entering into the Holy of Holies with His own blood for man's forgiveness.
"But Christ, having come as a High Priest of the good things that have come into being, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation,
And not through the blood of goats and calves but through His own blood, entered into the Holy of Holies, obtaining an eternal redemption." (See vs.11,12)
"Eternal redemption" - via the blood of Jesus.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
09 Feb '18 00:151 edit
ThinkOfOne seems to be saying I have no right to relate the redeeming blood to forgivness of sins in the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:34.
But in speaking of the first covenant and the second covenant Hebrews says that BOTH were no initiated without blood. This is is the same chapter he quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Notice please the word NEITHER.
Hebrews 9:18:
"Hence neither was the first covenant initiated without blood."
"Neither" here means - not the FIRST covenant and not the second covenant ... was initiated without blood.
This undeniably ties the blood of sacrifice to the first covenant AND to the new covenant as well. If that is the case then the blood of Christ is related to God forgiving the sinner's iniquities and remembering them no more.
"How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." (Heb. 9:14)
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days ... For I will be propitious to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins I shall by no means remember anymore." (8:10a,12)
Without shedding of blood....
05 Feb '18 23:56
Back to Top